OTTAWA —Stunned by criticisms from Prime Minister Stephen Harper aimed at the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, legal observers defended Beverley McLachlin’s role and urged calmer heads to prevail.

Even some Conservatives, speaking privately, raised eyebrows Friday at Harper’s public airing of his grievances with the court, saying it risked turning off voters.

At an event in London, Ont., Harper suggested his government took the high road while the chief justice overstepped proper bounds when she sought to flag the issue of eligibility of a Federal Court judge for a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court.

McLachlin called the new justice minister and the Prime Minister’s Office in July, during a consultation period three months before Marc Nadon, a semi-retired judge of the Federal Court of Appeal was named to the bench.

However, McLachlin’s office released a timeline stating that “at no time was there any communication” between her and the government “regarding any case before the courts.”

In a statement, McLachlin said: “Given the potential impact on the court, I wished to ensure that the government was aware of the eligibility issue. At no time did I express any opinion as to the merits of the eligibility issue. It is customary for chief justices to be consulted during the appointment process and there is nothing inappropriate in raising a potential issue affecting a future appointment.”

Harper likened it to a call that would have seen a minister fired for doing what she did.

“If people thought the prime minister or other ministers of the government were consulting judges on cases before them, or, even worse, consulting judges on cases that might come before them before the judges themselves had the opportunity to hear the appropriate evidence, I think the entire opposition, entire media and entire legal community would be outraged, so I do not think that’s the appropriate way to go.”

Osgoode Hall law professor Bruce Ryder it is Harper who appears to have overstepped a line. “It smells like petty vindictiveness as opposed to any genuine concern for judicial independence.”

“The comments that the prime minister and the justice minister have made in suggesting the chief justice has done anything wrong risks politicizing the judiciary rather than protecting its independence.”

With pundits questioning the wisdom of the court’s public response to criticism first attributed to anonymous government sources and later echoed by Harper himself, Ryder said it was “very important” for McLachlin to clear the air “given that unfair aspersions have been cast on her character.”

Osgoode Hall law school dean Lorne Sossin said it’s “entirely legitimate” for McLachlin to have flagged eligibility for a Supreme Court seat as a potential legal issue. “That’s not about influencing a decision.”

Sossin said it would not have been correct if there were any evidence McLachlin sought to influence an outcome: “It’s not for the court to pick the next member. It’s not for them to say we think this is a good or bad appointment, but consultation is both expected and positive.”

Sossin gave Harper the benefit of doubt, saying it is unclear why MacKay would have advised him McLachlin’s call was inappropriate. “Whatever view the prime minister’s formed, he’s formed it because thinks government had a role to play that shouldn’t be influenced.”

But he added McLachlin has proven in more than 25 years on the Supreme Court and more than a decade as chief justice that she respects the role of each branch of government. “I can’t think of a person in this country whose reputation is stronger for propriety, integrity, respect for not only the courts but also for government and the role of elected officials.”

For Sossin, the dispute is not one that risks undermining key institutions, but he said there are concerns all sides should bear in mind.

“Our whole justice system really depends on leadership and respect and buy-in from the governments of the day and from the judiciary . . . that’s embedded in our constitutional foundations. It’s not meant to, and I don’t think can, function if there’s a lack of that mutual respect, so that’s why it’s so concerning.”

“If everyone is playing their role you can win or lose on any given day in court or have an appointment that people aren’t enthusiastic about or have concerns about, but this idea of mutual trust and respect is just bedrock to what makes our system so successful.”

University of Toronto law professor David Schneiderman said the prime minister is “trying to discredit the chief justice and he can’t win that fight.”

“I can’t see that he’s moving public opinion, probably it’s appealing to the (Conservative party) base and they’re probably happy to see him take on the court, that’s part again of the old Reform agenda. But I can’t see it changing any judicial outcomes before the court.”

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.